RATI RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri G. S. Hajela, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A. G. A. for the State as well as Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India.

(2.) THE appellant, Rati Ram, who has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.9.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 25, Shahjahanpur in Special Case No. 21 of 2006; State Versus Rati Ram, under Sections -8/19/26 of N. D. P. S. Act, P. S. -Mirzapur, district -Shahjahanpur by which he has been convicted under Section -19/26 of N. D. P. S. Act and sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - (One Lac) and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of two years' R. I., is seeking enlargement on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been convicted in the present case under the aforesaid offence on the ground that he has embezzled 6.30 Kgs. opium which was cultivated by him during the year, 2001 -02 in pursuance of the license granted to him to cultivate opium poppy. He next submitted that the prosecution has totally failed to prove by any cogent evidence that the opium which was delivered by the appellant to the District Opium Officer was suspected of being adulterated with any foreign substance and sealed in the presence of the appellant. He next submitted that the prosecution has further failed to prove by any tangible evidence that either the sealed opium received by the Government Opium Factory was opened and sample was drawn thereof in the presence of the appellant or he was given any notice intimating the date and time of opening the sealed opium. He next submitted that the sample allegedly drawn from the opium cultivated by the appellant was kept in a container which was neither labelled nor the coding officer was examined during trial for proving the fact that the sample which was received by the forensic expert, was the same which was drawn from the appellant's opium and hence the finding recorded by the court below on the basis of the report of the forensic expert that the opium delivered by the appellant was adulterated is wholly unsustainable.